DENIED: April 30, 2021
CBCA 6351
DGG RE INVESTMENTS LLC, dba GUARDIAN ASSET MANAGEMENT,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.
Doug P. Hibshman and Nicholas T. Solosky of Fox Rothschild LLP, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant.
Jonathan English and Julie K. Cannatti, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY, SHERIDAN, and RUSSELL.
BEARDSLEY, Board Judge.
DGG RE Investments LLC, dba Guardian Asset Management (Guardian), seeks damages arising out of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) decision denying Guardian’s claim for payment for certain custodial property inspections performed by Guardian under a HUD Field Service Management (FSM) 3.10 contract. The Board stayed this appeal pending resolution of Purdy Enterprise, LLC v. Department of Housing & Urban Development, CBCA 6128, et al. (Mar. 15, 2021), and the appeal of P.K. Management Group, Inc. v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development, CBCA 6185, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,417, aff’d, P.K. Management Group, Inc. v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development, 987 F.3d. 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2021), to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
This appeal, Purdy, and P.K. Management Group involve a dispute as to whether HUD has to pay for ongoing routine inspections of custodial properties under contract line item number (CLIN) 0005AA or CLIN 0006. Guardian’s contract has the same CLINs 0005AA and 0006 that the Board and the Federal Circuit examined in P.K. Management Group and Purdy.
“[T]he plain contract language does not obligate HUD to pay the unit price in CLIN 0005AA (or in the corresponding CLINS for option years) for routine inspections of custodial properties.” The Federal Circuit . . . held “that the plain meaning places compensation for routine inspections of Custodial properties under CLIN 0006 rather than CLIN 0005AA.” P.K. Management Group, Inc., 987 F.3d. at 1033. CLIN 0005AA applies only to the same properties, HUD-owned vacant, as CLIN 0005; and CLIN 0006 “governs the compensation for routine inspections of Custodial properties” through a monthly fee. Id. at 1032.
Purdy. Guardian’s FSM 3.10 “contract terms unambiguously cover routine inspections through a monthly fee rather than individual payments.” P.K. Management Group, 987 F.3d. at 1031.
Guardian failed to distinguish this appeal from Purdy or P.K. Management Group and failed to provide a reason why we should not deny this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is denied.
Decision
We DENY the appeal.
Erica S. Beardsley
Board Judge
We concur:
Patricia J. Sheridan
Board Judge
Beverly M. Russell
Board Judge
This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in DGG RE Investments LLC, dba Guardian Asset Management, CBCA 6351. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.